Say we want to split our baccarat betting life into endless four-wager spots, anytime registering our W/L ratio by a simple flat betting strategy.
It doesn't matter whether we're betting those four spots consecutively or diluted at various degrees. Let alone which bet selection we would like to use.

Forgetting for now the game asymmetricity, the probability to win or lose all those spots is 1/16 (6.25%), the probability to win at least one wager over four attempts is 15/16 (93.75%).
Easy.

Now say we want to register what happens (by a mere FB placement) after a given not-bet outcome (W or L) had appeared.

The possible results are:

WWWW: +3
WWWL: +1
WWLW: +1
WWLL: -1
WLWW: +1
WLWL: -1
WLLW: -1
WLLL: -3
LLLL: -3
LLLW: -1
LLWL: -1
LLWW: +1
LWLL: -1
LWLW: +1
LWWL: +1
LWWW: +3

Of course the total sum is zero, anyway the symmetrical W/L situations among the 16 possible outcomes are just six (WWLL, WLWL, WLLW, LLWW, LWLW and LWWL).

Math teachs us that no matter which spot we'll decide to bet, any W/L pattern will get the same probability to appear. More specifically that at baccarat every spot wagered will get, itlr, a 50.68/49.32 probability to happen.

In reality the actual card distribution could endorse or not the probability to get, per every four-spots wagered, a symmetrical or asymmetrical situation.

Actually the above considerations reflect a perfect symmetrical 50/50 production, but baccarat is a slight asymmetrical game as itlr B>P.
It may happen that along the shoe we're playing at the slight asymmetricity will endorse a "fictional" simmetricity or, on the other end, increasing a natural asymmetricity.

How can we do to "solve" the problem?

as. 

To win at baccarat IN THE LONG RUN we need an advantage, a real advantage I mean.

Betting few spots alone, quitting when ahead or after a given loss, trying to not increase the wagers in negative situations (or increasing them in positive spots), betting any B/P situation alone whatever intended, any MM procedure don't make the job.

And any player wishing to play baccarat seriously must throw away the idea that baccarat is a succession of either 50/50 propositions or 50.68/49.32 still situations.
Those situations are unbeatable by any means.
See J.E. Kerrich experiments for reference and he was talking about a fair coin flip toss, so let's think about the long term results when instead of being payed 1:1 we are getting 0.9876 or 0.9894 return on our money per every coin flip.

Therefore we are forced to transfer the problem from dry math to a probability point of view. But at the same time probability world cannot be estimated without some math fundamentals.

Example.
We all know that at hold'em poker the odds that each player will get pocket Aces on the first two cards are 1:221.
Such odds are calculated by considering all possible two card combinations with the precise possibility to get one of the twelve A-A combinations.
Now suppose that in the 9-handed holde'm table we're playing at we are in seat #7 and we have reasons to think that an Ace will be more probable to fall into the first 3-4 cards dealt.
Is still 1:221 our probability to be dealt A-A?
Of course it's not.
Even considering the high variance happening at poker tables for either objective and more important subjective features, we could deduce that in that hand we are not generally favorite to win.

Even though the example is very distantly related to baccarat, we may infer that key cards determining itlr the most likely course of the result could be more or less concentrated in some portions of the shoe; with the important difference that at baccarat we get the luxury to know where (and options are just two) and how much a given key card had helped or not and by which degree the side it fell on.

Now we're not playing trends or general probabilities, we are going to wager spots where the probability to get a valuable key card falling at a given side is endorsed by some statistical features.

More on that later.

as. 

One of the worst approach one could make, imo, is considering bac outcomes in terms of simple B/P successions.
The game is too much affected by volatility to get hints from them.

Consider this simple BP sequence:

BBBBBBBBB

At hand #5 Player got a 7 initial point and Banker got a 2.
Banker pulled out a 6 and won the hand.

From another point of view and regardless of the previous four Banker wins quality, itlr the more likely scenario in this precise cards situation will be to form a BBBBP sequence.
Thus itlr our 9-hand Banker streak becomes a BBBBPBBBB sequence.

The fact that two or three cards combine to form the highest result shouldn't divert us from the notion that baccarat is a high card game.
Naturally two low cards (as 4-4 for example) could produce a very high result but iltr the number of 8s formed by 4-4 and 5-3 are way less likely than a simple 8-zero.
And of course the probability to get those low cards situation prompting an 8 is perfectly symmetrical.

Itlr, patterns are just the reflex of math probabilities that cannot be the product of simple linear card countings other than for very very small insignificant values (Jacobsen et al).

Since we cannot solve the bac problem mathematically, we have to dispute the real randomness of the outcomes, or better sayed, the actual probability to get a more or less shifted card distribution forming results at various degrees at the shoe we're playing at.

We know that a card distribution, no matter how whimsically placed, will get some limits of relative frequency, hence the model is dependant and finite.
A thing better evaluated by a place selection and probability after events tools that have nothing to do with simple B and P outcomes widely intended.

as.

The actual procedure I discovered to get a long term flat betting winning strategy was mainly built upon R. Von Mises and M. von Smoluchoswki works made on different fields than gambling (of course).

The method is on sale for $3.500.000, so basically isn't for sale.
Let casinos think that math will guarantee them a long term profit no matter what, it's our interest to keep this statement true as long as possible.

At the same token, I admire people who made and still make their best efforts to contradict math experts statements that stubbornly think that at baccarat every proposition is EV- no matter what.

This last is a complete absolute total tocking no brainer bighornshit, a thing that only ignorant people could keep stating.
We're ready to challenge for real money those fkng "experts" claiming that every bet will be EV- no matter what, providing data will come from a real source and not from pc simulated shoes that supposedly bring a so called "perfect randomness".

Curiously most people claiming that bac is an unbeatable game couldn't provide a proper amount of REAL shoes data showing that every bet selection is worthless, just focusing about Phil Ivey's edge soprting strategy who won a lot but collected nothing.

as.

So after years of studying this game, I've devised the random walk capable to spot the situations where an astounding high probability of crossing a possible unrandom production at given shoes will happen, that is the necessary tool to get an edge over the casino.

For practical reasons I had to converge multiple limited random walks into an univocal line, knowing that the mere asym hands factor will be too much diluted with the more powerful sym strenght.
Of course this lack of precision will affect more the short term variance but not the overall probability of getting key cards or not at given spots.

In a word, every shoe dealt in the universe must follow some more likely key cards distributions up to the point that short term outcomes are just small interferences over the long term plan.

To do that I had to compare multiple random walks reaching some values of limiting value of relative frequency converging into a single line that will get the "on" or "off" input according to certain actual results.

Whenever such values are not getting a signficant point or, on the other side, are passing certain points, the betting line won't dictate any bet.
Naturally such points are empirically placed for simplicity, probably there are more precise assessments of this random walk run.

The important thing is that any bet made following this random walk is EV+.

as. 

Quote from: alrelax on September 27, 2020, 08:28:12 AM
Can you please comment because this is exactly your last sentence what happened the other night and this shoe was an astronomical shoe but if you bet with your feeling or what you wanted you would have lost money.!

https://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/absolute-fantastic-shoe-seriously-readable!/msg68849/#msg68849

No comment on it.....

as.

Asymmetricity is not in the eye of the beholder, it's just a pure objective fact not needing supernatural powers to be detected but some calculations.

as.

I repeat, the only way to know if we're betting the right side ITLR is by assessing how many times our selection got math favorite spots in form of higher two card initial points.
We shouldn't care a damn whether in the actual shoe played our 7s are losing to higher points, itlr we'll win.

In some sense we could transform actual results into two first card situations. Itlr no way a 2 initial point is going to win more times than an opposing 3 point and so on.

As explained here many times, baccarat results are the direct reflex of math situations. Not everytime a math advantaged spot will form a win, but to get a long term edge we have to bet those math advantaged spots anyway, otherwise we're destined to lose.

The more we're winning those unfavorite math spots, higher will be the probability to lose subsequent bets.

We can't control the real outcomes, more likely we can make a fair estimation larger than 50% about the side which will be kissed by a higher 2-card point.

as.

What about a MM which SEEMS to get a primary role over a proper bet selection?

First, there are bet selections getting us a long term edge (albeit small), thus we know to be on the right side of the betting options.
They do not come up around the corner, we need certain moderate deviations to be exploited and of course the main reason why we get an edge is because unrandom portions of the shoe are more likely than we think.

Second, most of our bets made by utilizing a MM along with a weak BS will get a negative EV, it could happen that by coincidence we catch one or several key EV+ hands. But itlr we are going uphill.
Surely a simple MM will raise the probability of success but almost always wil lfollow the negative values we expect to get.
Of course a MM enlarge our profits only whenever we know our betting spots are getting a positive EV.

Third, there's no way in the universe to play profitably an EV- game when we think it's randomly placed.
It's a pure contradiction in terms.


About bet selection.

I stress again about the importance of asym/sym concept widely taken.
We can't give a fkng fk about what math experts keep to state, they make their assumptions about a perfect complete randomness of the outcomes.
No way itlr a 50.68/49.32 dynamic probability will get the same probability to show up per every hand dealt.

The fact that casinos will get huge profits from baccarat tables doesn't mean that every single bac player is a fkng loser.

Per every shoe dealt, cards are arranged in a more or less asymmetrical fashion. Think about 8s and 9s falling here or there. Even if 8s and 9s are equally distributed, second card of each side will prompt more or less likely winning results.
Same about third card values, now more important as they tend to confirm or deny a possible light/moderate/strong asymmetricity either by numbers or by rules.

More on that later.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on September 14, 2020, 04:39:07 AM

Don't forget guys it's very easy to armchair quarterback the right decisions after you see the whole board all written or typed out. It's not that easy at the table in a live game with real money.

Holy words!

as.

That's interesting!

This is the classic shoe where, even considering it under a simple lens, it would be impossible to lose.

1- Consistent P patterns, mostly as singles

2- No 3+ P streaks, just one 3 P streak

3- unb plan #2: win win

4- unb plan #1: easy spots to look for

5-  long B streak (11)

6- derived roads forming consistent random walks

Hope Al will put his comments about his personal strategy

as.



 

We should print in our mind there's no fkng way to beat this game itlr unless a defect of randomness at various degrees is working.

Sometimes it could happen that a normal distribution could be interpreted as a kind of unrandomness, mostly as some patterns seem to get a uniform shape.
That's now that we must consider along with quantity factors the more important quality factors.

I repeat, we can't expect to be long term winners whenever our bets aren't getting the first two card advantage itlr.
That's why progressions can't be of any help unless our bets succession will get a strong math edge itlr. That is unless our bet selection will get an edge by a simple flat betting.

If the improper shuffle parameter seems to be of paramount importance, think about how many times this factor will act along the shoes by percentages.

Do you think that every shoe dealt is affected by a decisive degree of unrandomness?
No tocking way.

Many times shoes are properly shuffled, meaning that randomness is accomplished. In those situations there's no fkng way to beat the game.

Random production equals to random betting that equals to a math negative proposition.

Think about those shoes where standing P points are losing to higher Banker points.
This specific random walk is strong asymmetrical as P 6s and 7s points are strong favorite itlr.
Nonetheless in our short term sample they have lost.

More interestingly is whenever the third card strongly helps (or not) several times P side, no matter which is the B point. Sometimes we have chosen the right side, meaning B side shows a higher point, especially if the hand is a pure asymmetrical hand by the rules.
In any case, this is another random walk.

In both cases quality doesn't correspond to quantity, that is math is temporariliy disregared by the actual card distribution.

People who have won such hands will think to be geniuses or lucky, actually they are either stup.id or stupi.d in either scenarios.

There's no one possibility in the world to be a long term bac winner whether our bets aren't getting the right math side of the proposition, either by crossing the higher initial 4-card point or, a lot better, by getting a higher asym hands percentage than expected while wagering Banker.
No matter the actual outcomes.

Up to the point where some shoes which went mathematically wrong for long cannot be of any future betting value.

as.

I'm deadly sure many bac players are long term winners, it's people who most of the times go unnoticed.
They smile at other players when an improbable long winning streak is giving them a lot of money, yet they do not bet a fkng dime.
But at the same time they never be caught in the specular losing streak, still smiling.

as.

Thanks Al!
I fear that most of your points rely upon your long experience very few baccarat players have...
Simulated shoes are not real shoes and simulated outcomes are not real outcomes, especially if one considers red or blue dots simply as red or blue dots...

Hands cutting or prolonging a pattern

Baccarat is not roulette where a red number has the identical probability to appear than two of the "losing" or "winning" contiguous black numbers and vice versa.

Say the shoe produced the PPP pattern.
Most of the times this situation comes from mere symmetrical hands getting the same probability to appear.
Sometimes (and you should know how much are those probabilities), PPP pattern comes from one asym hand not favoring B side and two sym hands; rarely two asym hands didn't favor B side and very very rarely all three asym hands went to P side despite the math disadvantage.

Anyway let's assume this PPP pattern was formed by an unknown asym/sym ratio. 

Now we decide to bet Banker because:

- generally speaking, Banker is a less disadvantaged hand

- itlr P3>P3+

- there is always the very slight propensity to get the opposite hand just formed.

At various degrees, all those points derive from sensible math and stats features, thus there's no doubt that itlr we'll get more B hands than P hands.

In the hand in question, Player shows a zero point and Banker a 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.
In a word, we are slight, moderate or strong favorite to win the hand.

The third card is an 8, therefore we'll lose the hand, despite of the initial general and actual advantage.

Next two hands are two P hands, hence the actual pattern is PPPPPP instead of a more likely (in our example) PPPBPP pattern.

From a strict math and ROI point of view, our Banker bet was really right just whether Banker had shown a 3, 4 or 5 initial point. Actually the best situation was to get a Banker 5 point followed by a 4 and then by a 3.
Since the probability to get 3,4 or 5 is more than 3/2 placed than having Banker to show 6 or 7, we know that this bet was EV+. 

But more importantly is to see that that PPPPPP pattern didn't follow a more likely scenario as a strong shifted situation hasn't happened.
Notice that among the Banker options, I've discounted a natural as it involves an unnecessary 0.95:1 payement.
I mean that itlr we'll be in way better shape when trying to cut a banker streak by estimating that a natural (or standing point) is coming at P side than vice versa.

Even if is totally true that a sensible strategy could get the best of it by splitting the outcomes in 1s, 2s and 3s, is altogether true that long streaks must be properly classified as quite unlikely to show up by mere symmetrical propositions.

Very often quality overcomes quantity.

as.

Thanks for your interesting reply Al!

Regardless of the method one likes to use, I see a common trait between my thoughts and your words: the probability to win doesn't come around any corner, we ought to select possible profitable spots within the realm of chaotic disorder.

Thinking in this way we can assume that per every three shoes played, one could be good, the second neutral and the third quite bad (in any order, of course).
Since, as Al correctly sayed, good is inferior to bad for the negative edge, after having won we must expect to lose everything back and naturally there are no guarantees that after bad a balanced good is going to come out shortly.

It could happen that two, three or even more consecutive shoes produced all good situations, yet the probability this thing happens is very low.

At the same token, it could happen that two, three or more shoes will form bad events and it's now that the catastrophe is coming.

We can't give the casino the luxury to know that we are going to bet every shoe dealt (or most part of them).

That's the downfall of every mechanical method presented or sold everywhere.
A method is set up in order to win no matter what, maybe stuffed with worthless stop win or stop loss techniques.

We can't interfere with probabilities, they are just there and it's up to us to estimate what's more likely now.

as.